Modernism

[Indyann]

Thank you to all who so thoughtfully and kindly answered my questions.

When Christ, prayed that we all may be one, I guess He knew that His own Church would be “splintered”, but how tragic that even Roman Catholics are now at odds, or “separated brethren”, as someone noted in an earlier post

After reading the posts, I really believe there are very few “modernists” that post on these fora. They generally don’t last long.

I have located “Pascendi” on the Vatican website. Here is the English link. I prefer to read a document straight from the Vatican website if it is available. I haven’t got a chance to read it in its entirity yet, but along with all your comments and a thorough read, I am sure I will have a better understanding.

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html

 

[Gregory_I]

Actually, the church cannot be splintered. It changes in size over time to mroe or less, but the church is indivisable. THose who leave it are no longer a part of it, and consequently, the ROman Catholic CHurch is whole and entire, needing nothing that other sects might think they have to offer; all their “goods” come from the Catholic church.

The Church Cannot ever be considered incomplete, as it is the body of Christ.

 

[brasta_septim]

I only have one opinion on mModernism; it is a heresy. However, that does not mean that those that attend the OF mass or do not wear head coverings during mass are modernists. I am a person that seeks to find a balanced medium between pre and post-Vatican II catholicism, and between the OF and EF. However, some of the abuses in the Church have leaned too far towards modernism (including the Pope’s new opinion on contraception) Ah, don’t you just love vatican translation errors?

 

[Indyann]

I only have one opinion on mModernism; it is a heresy. However, that does not mean that those that attend the OF mass or do not wear head coverings during mass are modernists. I am a person that seeks to find a balanced medium between pre and post-Vatican II catholicism, and between the OF and EF. However, some of the abuses in the Church have leaned too far towards modernism (including the Pope’s new opinion on contraception) Ah, don’t you just love vatican translation errors?

I suggest you open a thread regarding the Pope’s opinion on contraception. He has no “new opinion”, This has been discussed several times on CAF. You many do a search and see that you are apparently misinformed.

 

[Indyann]

Thank you to all who so thoughtfully and kindly answered my questions.

When Christ, prayed that we all may be one, I guess He knew that His own Church would be “splintered”, but how tragic that even Roman Catholics are now at odds, or “separated brethren”, as someone noted in an earlier post

After reading the posts, I really believe there are very few “modernists” that post on these fora. They generally don’t last long.

I have located “Pascendi” on the Vatican website. Here is the English link. I prefer to read a document straight from the Vatican website if it is available. I haven’t got a chance to read it in its entirity yet, but along with all your comments and a thorough read, I am sure I will have a better understanding.

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html

Technically, you are correct. Well, then what is it called when theres a bunch of Christians (Catholic and non) throwing darts at one another? Frankly, I call it ridiculous.

And shameful.

 

[laszlo]

Here’s the rub, though. Catholics have come to distrust each other, because of fragmentation of belief. Among some, there is continuity of liturgical life. Among others, there is continuity of loyalty to the papacy. Among others, there is continuity with our Orthodox brothers. But the whole has been deconstructed, so that it is hard for the disparate strands of the Church to come together in one piece. This has been the real triumph of “modernism,” against which Pope Pius X expended so much effort.

Exactly, and this division is the work of the Adversary. Jesus prayed for the unity

John 17:21 That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

 

[Timothy17]

Modernism is a mentality, a worldview. It essentially disconnects us from the past and, consequently, places man outside of reality. He imagines himself foreign or alien to even the present world, and other men. He becomes an island unto himself. He typically scorns the past and anything reminiscent of it. Modernism is inherently destructive. The ideal of novelty is actually a destruction, a desolation, a distraction. Though it appears to be productive (by constantly proposing new things) it in fact replaces things substantial and meaningful with things empty and meaningless. It leads to existentialism, nihilism, and misanthropy (from mis, the root of miser, misery, miserable). Misers suffer from an unnatural distrust or disliking of all things human, from an almost impossible self-importance or selfishness, even though they may hate themselves with equal passion. They are entirely consumed by their own selves.

It goes on like this. Modernism isn’t simply a bad thing for and in the Church. It is bad for humanity as a whole. Modernism is why modern buildings and art, for example, are so bland, geometric or “stale” in appearance. It’s the reason why people who see traditional Church and Christian art and architecture for the first time are overwhelmed by them and usually have an emotional response to the exposure, and often do not like it - it’s not that the art is not objectively beautiful, but it intrinsically represents something that is foreign to them. It says that there is something in and to life, something inherently meaningful and valuable, and this Truth of itself demands adherence, understanding and reconciliation to itself. People, not liking change or fearing it, thus avoid it. It’s why modernism resents any expression of religion - but especially of the Christian religion - in public places and spaces. For modernists, ignorance really is bliss, and so long as they can convince themselves they are ignorant then they feel they have no guilt or responsibility for the often shallow, empty lives they lead.

Under the auspices of change and progress modernists usually march. By this they mean novelty. Progressivists desire progress only in destruction and abandonment ; i.e., more of the same destructive behaviour. As they are inherently misanthropic, progress means more fundamentally anti-human activity. Their inherent dislike for mankind is such that they truly imagine the destruction of man as a positive boon for the same. They often cloak change under the name of progress. Strictly speaking, progress is the development of something, and change is for something to become something else. For this reason Christians are naturally distrustful and suspicious of change, because for us some things cannot be changed and are not meant to be changed ; e.g., the Church, her doctrines, her dogmas, her Truths. They may make progress ; that is, develop, and become stronger, better understood or articulated, better applied, etc., but they do not and never essentially change. They are inherently the same yesterday as they are today and will be tomorrow, because they are truth.

Pax Christi,
Tim

 

[mark_avery]

Would not mortification dispel any reason or need to argue against they elect!

 

[laszlo]

Modernism is a mentality, a worldview. It essentially disconnects us from the past and, consequently, places man outside of reality. He imagines himself foreign or alien to even the present world, and other men. He becomes an island unto himself. He typically scorns the past and anything reminiscent of it. Modernism is inherently destructive. The ideal of novelty is actually a destruction, a desolation, a distraction. Though it appears to be productive (by constantly proposing new things) it in fact replaces things substantial and meaningful with things empty and meaningless. It leads to existentialism, nihilism, and misanthropy (from mis, the root of miser, misery, miserable). Misers suffer from an unnatural distrust or disliking of all things human, from an almost impossible self-importance or selfishness, even though they may hate themselves with equal passion. They are entirely consumed by their own selves.

This is what the judaizers said againt the Christians 2000 years ago.

The Christians abandoned the past (the Mosaic Law) placed themselves alien to the world (Roman Empire) replaced things substantial and meaningful with some unproven new.

The moral is that the past is not necessarily good, and the new is not necessarily bad

In essence the modernist were and are those people who put their understanding of the truth against the authority of the Church.

 

[Padraig1972]

Well, i think At Trent has got some good points here. Even in this thread we cannot seem to agree. That should tell us how unfruitful and dividing the modernism of today is for our church and for all the catholics out there (God bless you all).

Unity, not division.

 

[centurionguard]

The difference still is influence. If Arianism is categorized as modernism, then a great deal of the Church would have been modernists back then. We will always be attacked at any point of Church history, past, present, future. Its one thing or the other. Even if we defeat modernism, the next heresy will come. The devil will never rest until the end of time when God puts him in his proper place.

Also Arianism is making a comeback through the Restorationists. I haven’t found a single Restorationist that affirms Christ’s divinity.

I have a little difficulty believing the entirety of this assertion.

I haven’t found a single Restorationist that affirms Christ’s divinity

So are you saying that those involved in the SSPX or those devoted to the TLM don’t affirm the Divinity of Christ?

 

[StTommyMore]

I have a little difficulty believing the entirety of this assertion.

So are you saying that those involved in the SSPX or those devoted to the TLM don’t affirm the Divinity of Christ?

Traditionalists and Resortationists are two different things entirely.

 

[centurionguard]

Traditionalists and Reservationists are two different things entirely.

Well I always thought so but it would seem some arguments poised against the FSSP and SSPX would see them as Restorationists which I disagree.

I go to the Novus Ordo Mass but not by choice. If there was a place in my city I would prefer the TLM. Some would label me after saying this.

Yes there are liturgical abuses in the Novus Ordo that need reparation.
But this is not to say I refrain from going to OF.

 

[StTommyMore]

Well I always thought so but it would seem some arguments poised against the FSSP and SSPX would see them as Restorationists which I disagree.

I go to the Novus Ordo Mass but not by choice. If there was a place in my city I would prefer the TLM. Some would label me after saying this.

Yes there are liturgical abuses in the Novus Ordo that need reparation.
But this is not to say I refrain from going to OF.

You didn’t even need to bring the SSPX or FSSP up. You are seeing criticisms that do not exist. Look up Restorationist and you will see what I mean.

As far as abuses go, they happen in the OF, and EF, but they are more subtle in the EF.

 

[Vico]

Why is modernism wrong? Just one reason:

“If anyone says that divine revelation cannot be made credible by external signs, and that therefore men should be drawn to the faith only by their personal internal experience or by private inspiration, let him be anathema” (De Fide, Vatican I, 3rd session, Canon 3)
piustheninth.com/apps2/app9.htm

Modernism notes from Pius X follow, about half of the topics. To read them all see:
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html

Modernist personalities are: philosopher, a believer, a theologian, an historian, a critic, an apologist, a reformer.

The philosophical foundation of Modernism is Agnosticism which leads to Atheism.

For Modernism, the divine reality does really exist in itself and quite independently of the person who believes in based upon the experience of the individual. This leads to the belief that every religion is true. Tradition becomes a communication of an original experience. Science is concerned with the reality of phenomena, into which faith does not enter, and faith concerns itself with the divine reality, unknown to science; concluding that there can never be any dissension between faith and science.

Modernist theological immanence: the principle of faith is held to be immanent and the believer holds that: This principle is Go, then the theologian draws the conclusion: God is immanent in man.

Modernist theological symbolism: The philosopher regards as certain that the representations of the object of faith are merely symbolical; the believer has affirmed that the object of faith is God in Himself; and the theologian proceeds to affirm that: The representations of the divine reality are symbolical.

Modernist Divine permanence: the Church and the Sacraments are not to be regarded as having been instituted by Christ Himself, because they have been founded only mediately by Christ.

Modernist sacraments are mere symbols or signs.

Modernist dogma consists entirely in the process of penetrating and refining primitive formula as required by circumstances, not logic but vitally.

For Modernists, the Holy Scriptures are a human work, made by men for men, but allowing the theologian to proclaim that it is divine by immanence.

For Modernists, the Church and authority has its origin in the religious conscience, and that being so, is subject to it.

 

[centurionguard]

You didn’t even need to bring the SSPX or FSSP up. You are seeing criticisms that do not exist. Look up Restorationist and you will see what I mean.

As far as abuses go, they happen in the OF, and EF, but they are more subtle in the EF.

OK sorry by Restorationist meaning Christian primitivism

My apologies.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I have a little difficulty believing the entirety of this assertion.

So are you saying that those involved in the SSPX or those devoted to the TLM don’t affirm the Divinity of Christ?

Restorationists are those who believe that the entire Church apostatized sometime between the death of St. John the Apostle and the Council of Nicea, and that their Church today is the true Church of Christ established in the First Century, restored by God through their founder. The most popular Restorationists are the Latter-day Saints or LDS. You can also throw in the Seventh-Day Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses. Plus my personal nemesis, the Iglesia ni Cristo.

I apologize that I assumed everyone is familiar with the term. Its fairly recent. And its appropriate because they are not Protestants. Their common theme is the apostatized Church and them being the restoration. Also another common theme is Jesus being less than God.

 

[Gregory_I]

THIS IS THE BIG ONE!

“Modernist dogma consists entirely in the process of penetrating and refining primitive formula as required by circumstances, not logically but vitally.”

Constantly. What was said in the past has no bearing because, well, we thought of a different spin on it NOW, don’t you realize?

No. I don’t.

 

[ronin67]

I don’t think Martin Luther falls into that category. His intention was never to break away from the Holy Catholic church. He just had a few questions, that a prideful pope refused to answer. If he would have gave audience to him when Martin Luther originally posted his questions, maybe the reformation would have never happened. Denying the deity of Jesus Christ as God in the flesh, is modernism. Ophra is very much into modernism. Big reason I don’t listen to any of her garbage. Yet I’m sure many Catholics watch her show, when they should be reading the Holy Bible (Catholics lack in biblical knowledge/although many on this forum have impressed me).

May God Bless.

Ed

 

[ConstantineTG]

I don’t think Martin Luther falls into that category. His intention was never to break away from the Holy Catholic church. He just had a few questions, that a prideful pope refused to answer. If he would have gave audience to him when Martin Luther originally posted his questions, maybe the reformation would have never happened. Denying the deity of Jesus Christ as God in the flesh, is modernism. Ophra is very much into modernism. Big reason I don’t listen to any of her garbage. Yet I’m sure many Catholics watch her show, when they should be reading the Holy Bible (Catholics lack in biblical knowledge/although many on this forum have impressed me).

May God Bless.

Ed

Sorry but, prideful Pope? What does the Pope owe Martin Luther? He’s a priest, he should humbly submit himself to the Pope, not the other way around.